Advertisement

Designing and implementing correct real-time systems

  • Steven Bradley
  • William Henderson
  • David Kendall
  • Adrian Robson
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 863)

Abstract

Existing formal methods for real-time largely deal with abstract models of real-time systems, and seldom address implementation issues; they are mainly used for modelling and specification. In this paper we propose an alternative approach, in which a new timed process algebra, AORTA, is used as a design language, which can be verifiably implemented. As well as introducing and formally defining the language, methods for implementation and verification are discussed.

Keywords

Transition Rule Abstract Syntax Design Language Process Algebra Concrete Syntax 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    R Alur, C Courcoubetis, and D Dill. Model-checking for real-time systems. In IEEE Fifth Annual Symposium On Logic In Computer Science, pages 414–425, June 1990.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    J C M Baeten and J A Bergstra. Real time process algebra. Formal Aspects of Computing, 3(2):142–188, 1991.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    H Barringer, M Fisher, D Gabbay, G Gough, and R Owens. Metatem: A framework for programming in temporal logic. Technical Report Series UMCS-89-10-4, Department of Computer Science. University of Manchester, Oxford Rd, Manchester, October 1989.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    B Berthomieu and M Diaz. Modeling and verification of time dependent systems using time Petri nets. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 17(3):199–273, March 1991.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    T Bolognesi and F Lucidi. LOTOS-like process algebras with urgent or timed interactions. In K R Parker and G A Rose, editors, Formal Description Techniques IV, FORTE '91, pages 249–264. North Holland, November 1991.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    T Bolognesi, F Lucidi, and S Trigila. From timed Petri nets to timed LOTOS. In L Logrippo, R L Probert, and H Ural, editors, Protocol Specification, Testing and Verification X, pages 395–408. North-Holland, 1990.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    S Bradley, W Henderson, D Kendall, and A Robson. A formally based hard realtime kernel. Technical Report NPC-TRS-94-3, Department of Computing, University of Northumbria, UK, 1994. To appear in November 1994 edition of Microprocessors and Microsystems, special issue on hard real-time kernels.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    S Bradley, W Henderson, D Kendall, and A Robson. Practical formal development of real-time systems. In 11th IEEE Workshop on Real-Time Operating Systems and Software, RTOSS '94, pages 44–48, May 1994.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    A Burns. Scheduling hard real-time systems: a review. Software Engineering Journal, 6(3):116–128, May 1991.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    L Chen. An interleaving model for real-time systems. Technical Report ECS-LFCS-91-184, Edinburgh University, November 1991.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    M Daniels. Modelling real-time behavior with an interval time calculus. In J Vytopil, editor, Formal techniques in real-time and fault-tolerant systems Second international symposium, Lecture Notes in Computer Science 571, pages 53–71. Springer-Verlag, 1992.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    E A Emerson, A K Mok, A P Sistla, and J Srinivasan. Quantitative temporal reasoning. Real-Time Systems, 4(4):331–352, December 1992.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    M Felder, C Ghezzi, and M Pezze. High-level timed Petri nets as a kernel for executable specifications. Real Time Systems, 5(2/3):235–248, May 1993.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    R Gerber and I Lee. A layered approach to automating the verification of real-time systems. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 18(9):768–784, September 1992.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    C Ghezzi, D Mandrioli, and A Morzenti. Trio: A logic language for executable specifications of real-time systems. Technical Report 89-006, Politecnico di Milano, 1989.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    D Gilbert. Executable LOTOS. In Rudin and West, editors, Protocol Specification, Testing and Verification VII, pages 281–294. North-Holland, North-Holland, 1987.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    J F Groote. Transition system specifications with negative premises. In J C M Baeten and J W Klop, editors, CONCUR '90, Lecture Notes in Computer Science 458, pages 332–341, 1990.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    H Hansson. A calculus for communicating systems with time and probabilities. In Proc. 11th real-time systems symposium 1990, pages 278–287, 1990.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    F Jahanian, R Lee, and A K Mok. Semantics of modecharts in real time logic. In Proceedings of 21st Hawaii International conference on system Science, pages 479–489. IEEE, IEEE Press. 1988.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    C B Jones. Systematic software development using VDM. Prentice-Hall, 1986.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    G Jones. Programming in occam. Prentice Hall, 1987.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    P Krishnan. A model for real-time systems. In Proc. Foundations of Computer Science, pages 298–307, 1991.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    G Leduc. An upward compatible timed extension to LOTOS. In K R Parker and G A Rose, editors, Formal Description Techniques IV, FORTE '91. North Holland, November 1991.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    H R Lewis. A logic of concrete time intervals. In IEEE Fifth Annual Symposium On Logic In Computer Science, pages 380–389, June 1990.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    A McClenaghan. Mapping time-extended LOTOS to standard LOTOS. In K R Parker and G A Rose, editors, Formal Description Techniques IV, FORTE '91, pages 233–248. North Holland, November 1991.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    B Moszkowski. Executing Temporal Logic Programs. C.U.P., 1986.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    X Nicollin and J Sifakis. An overview and synthesis on timed process algebras. In J W de Bakker, C Huizing, W P de Roever, and G Rozenberg, editors, Real-Time: Theory in Practice. Lecture Notes in Computer Science 600, pages 526–548. Springer-Verlag, 1991.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    X Nicollin, J Sifakis, and S Yovine. From ATP to timed graphs and hybrid systems. In J W de Bakker, C Huizing, W P de Roever, and G Rozenberg, editors, Real-Time: Theory in Practice (REX workshop), Lecture Notes in Computer Science 600, pages 549–572. Springer-Verlag. June 1991.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    J S Ostroff. Formal methods for the specification and design of real-time safety critical systems. Journal of Systems and Software, 18(1):33–60, April 1992.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    J S Ostroff. A verifier for real-time properties. Real-Time Systems, 4(1):5–36, March 1992.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    C Y Park. Predicting program execution times by analyzing static and dynamic program paths. Real-Time Systems, 5(1):31–62, March 1993.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    C Y Park and A C Shaw. Experiments with a program timing tool based on source-level timing schema. Computer, pages 48–57, May 1991.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    P Puschner and Ch Koza. Calculating the maximum execution time of real-time programs. Journal of Real-Time systems, 1:159–176, 1989.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    J Quemada and A Fernandez. Introduction of quantitative relative time into LOTOS. In H Rudin and C H West, editors, Protocol Specification, Testing and Verification VII, pages 105–121. IFIP, North-Holland, 1987.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    S Schneider, J Davies, D M Jackson, G M Reed, J N Reed, and A W Roscoe. Timed CSP: Theory and practice. In J W de Bakker, C Huizing, W P de Roever, and G Rozenberg, editors, Real-Time: Theory in Practice (REX workshop), Lecture Notes in Computer Science 600, pages 640–675. Springer-Verlag, June 1991.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    D J Scholefield and H S M Zedan. TAM: A formal framework for the development of distributed real-time systems. In J Vytopil, editor, Formal techniques in real-time and fault-tolerant systems Second international symposium, Lecture Notes in Computer Science 571, pages 411–428. Springer-Verlag, 1992.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    A C Shaw. Communicating real-time machines. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 18(9):805–816, September 1992.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    R Sisto, L Ciminiera, and A Valenzano. A protocol for multirendezvous of LOTOS processes. IEEE transactions on computers, 40(1):437–446, April 1991.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    J M Spivey. The Z notation: A reference manual. Prentice Hall, 1989.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    C Tofts. Timed concurrent processes. In Semantics for Concurrency, pages 281–294, 1990.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    I Tvrdy. From LOTOS to OCCAM. In Second International Conference on Software Engineering for Real Time Systems, pages 175–179. The Computing and Control Division of the Institution of Electrical Engineers, September 1989.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    A Valenzano, R Sisto, and L Ciminiera. Rapid prototyping of protocols from LOTOS specifications. Software — Practice and Experience, 23(1):31–54, January 1993.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    W Yi. Real-time behaviour of asynchronous agents. In CONCUR 90, Lecture Notes in Computer Science 458, pages 502–520. Springer-Verlag, 1990.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • Steven Bradley
    • 1
  • William Henderson
    • 1
  • David Kendall
    • 1
  • Adrian Robson
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of ComputingUniversity of Northumbria at NewcastleNewcastle upon TyneUK

Personalised recommendations